Aclu Cries Foul On Slc Council Protest Of Days Of ’47 Flap

[frank_jessop]

This was tongue-in-cheek, right?

What does Mormons Building Bridges promote or stand for that is divisive? Please show examples.

[thesometimesaint]

What does Mormons Building Bridges promote or stand for that is divisive? Please show examples.

 

It doesn't matter what the they believe, only that they believe it. The state has to stay out of recognizing any religion.

[bluebell]

What does Mormons Building Bridges promote or stand for that is divisive? Please show examples.

The whole topic of homosexuality is divisive.

That doesn't mean that MBB is doing anything wrong or is responsible for the divisiveness but it does mean the parade can not allow them to have a float.

[Scott Lloyd]

The whole topic of homosexuality is divisive.

That doesn't mean that MBB is doing anything wrong or is responsible for the divisiveness but it does mean the parade can not allow them to have a float.

I think that the parade is off limits to campaigns for public office on the same principle.

[frank_jessop]

The whole topic of homosexuality is divisive.

That doesn't mean that MBB is doing anything wrong or is responsible for the divisiveness but it does mean the parade can not allow them to have a float.

That is a terribly weak and ridiculous argument.

But yes, the parade can do what it pleases and Salt Lake City officials should be careful in how they go about helping the parade to include others.

[bluebell]

That is a terribly weak and ridiculous argument.

But yes, the parade can do what it pleases and Salt Lake City officials should be careful in how they go about helping the parade to include others.

 

You are missing the forest for the trees.

 

No one is making any arguments.  

 

This discussion isn't about MBB.  It's not about homosexuality.  It's not even about what is or isn't divisive.  It's only about whether or not the parade people have the right to dictate who can participate in their parade and whether or not the government can intervene.

 

You keep wanting to make this about something that it's not about.

[Scott Lloyd]

That is a terribly weak and ridiculous argument.

But yes, the parade can do what it pleases and Salt Lake City officials should be careful in how they go about helping the parade to include others.

The parade committee won't allow overt political campaigning either. Nor will it allow in gun control opponents or anti-immigration activists or Tea Party folks or Rush Limbaugh "dittoheads" or animal-rights groups.

 

The committee doesn't take a position for or against those things; it just doesn't want the parade used as a platform for their advocacy. There are plenty of venues that welcome that sort of thing.

 

Do you think that a "terribly weak and ridiculous argument" as well? Should government bodies be pressuring the parade committee to allow in the above groups in the interest of "helping the parade to include others"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are missing the forest for the trees.

 

No one is making any arguments.  

 

This discussion isn't about MBB.  It's not about homosexuality.  It's not even about what is or isn't divisive.  It's only about whether or not the parade people have the right to dictate who can participate in their parade and whether or not the government can intervene.

 

You keep wanting to make this about something that it's not about.

Frank just got pooned. Probably doesn't even know it.

[Tacenda]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, I read it in Mormon Stories FB. John Dehlin posted that since the Mormon Tab choir couldn't or didn't walk in the parade they played "Somewhere Over the Rainbow". I don't know if this is true or the details. Maybe I'll come back with more info. Anyhow, JD was impressed, as am I! ETA: Sorry...wrong parade.

[bluebell]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, I read it in Mormon Stories FB. John Dehlin posted that since the Mormon Tab choir couldn't or didn't walk in the parade they played "Somewhere Over the Rainbow". I don't know if this is true or the details. Maybe I'll come back with more info. Anyhow, JD was impressed, as am I! ETA: Sorry...wrong parade.

 

This is an aside on your aside, but i really hate that the Gay and Lesbian movement has commandeered rainbows.  

[ERayR]

This is an aside on your aside, but i really hate that the Gay and Lesbian movement has commandeered rainbows.  

 

Also the word gay.

[frank_jessop]

You are missing the forest for the trees.

No one is making any arguments.

This discussion isn't about MBB. It's not about homosexuality. It's not even about what is or isn't divisive. It's only about whether or not the parade people have the right to dictate who can participate in their parade and whether or not the government can intervene.

You keep wanting to make this about something that it's not about.

I am not missing anything, I understand full well what the topic is. I also understand that the author of this thread has not mandated that every post be specifically about the ACLU, SLC council members letters to Days of 47. I also understand by experience that thread discuss multiple topics at once.

My participation in the thread started with, what surely you will agree is the off topic and intentionally vilification statement that Mormons Building Bridges is a "gay rights advocacy" group. I questioned the statement and continue to wait for someone to demonstrate how Mormons Building Bridges philosophy or actions are inharmonious with the teachings of the Church. The silence of the accusers is deafening.

Days of 47 can do as they please, SLC can act within the bounds of the law in denying or granting parade permits. SLC council members or the council as whole are not prohibited from informing Days of 47 what the goals and inclusive standards are for SLC for. Nor would SCL council be prohibited from informing Days of 47 the conditions on which SLC can deny permits.

[Walden]

Sometimes the ACLU gets it right.

Most of the time the ACLU gets it right....sometimes they just fight for the side that many oppose.

[bluebell]

I am not missing anything, I understand full well what the topic is. I also understand that the author of this thread has not mandated that every post be specifically about the ACLU, SLC council members letters to Days of 47. I also understand by experience that thread discuss multiple topics at once.

My participation in the thread started with, what surely you will agree is the off topic and intentionally vilification statement that Mormons Building Bridges is a "gay rights advocacy" group. I questioned the statement and continue to wait for someone to demonstrate how Mormons Building Bridges philosophy or actions are inharmonious with the teachings of the Church. The silence of the accusers is deafening.

Days of 47 can do as they please, SLC can act within the bounds of the law in denying or granting parade permits. SLC council members or the council as whole are not prohibited from informing Days of 47 what the goals and inclusive standards are for SLC for. Nor would SCL council be prohibited from informing Days of 47 the conditions on which SLC can deny permits.

 

No, i wasn't aware that labeling a group as a 'gay rights advocacy' group was an intentional vilification.

 

But whatever.  If you want to make this thread about that then you are right, you have that ability unless the OP tells you not to. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

.... labeling a group as a 'gay rights advocacy' group was an intentional vilification.

 

 

Yeah, that is a bit of a stretch.

[Scott Lloyd]

My participation in the thread started with, what surely you will agree is the off topic and intentionally vilification statement that Mormons Building Bridges is a "gay rights advocacy" group. I questioned the statement and continue to wait for someone to demonstrate how Mormons Building Bridges philosophy or actions are inharmonious with the teachings of the Church. The silence of the accusers is deafening.

 

The silence might be merely an indication of lack of interest.

 

A good way to find out would be to start your own thread on the topic as opposed to endeavoring to commandeer this one.

 

Days of 47 can do as they please, SLC can act within the bounds of the law in denying or granting parade permits. SLC council members or the council as whole are not prohibited from informing Days of 47 what the goals and inclusive standards are for SLC for. Nor would SCL council be prohibited from informing Days of 47 the conditions on which SLC can deny permits.

 

 

And others -- especially voters and constituents in the city -- are free to identify on the part of the city council what might be viewed as heavy-handed and potentially intimidating interference into the affairs of a civic organization.

 

No, i wasn't aware that labeling a group as a 'gay rights advocacy' group was an intentional vilification.

I wonder if members of Mormons Building Bridges would see it as an "accusation" to be characterized as advocating gay rights.

 

It would be like my being "accused" of defending Mormonism.

[frank_jessop]

I wonder if members of Mormons Building Bridges would see it as an "accusation" to be characterized as advocating gay rights.

It would be like my being "accused" of defending Mormonism.

Considering that the Church officially supported Salt Lake City's non-discrimination ordinance, can one use that as an instance the Church engaged in "gay rights advocacy".

It is not the phrase itself, it is the intent of your.

I surmise, and I wager accurately, that your use the phrase to cast Mormons Building Bridges in a negative light.

[Scott Lloyd]

Considering that the Church officially supported Salt Lake City's non-discrimination ordinance, can one use that as an instance the Church engaged in "gay rights advocacy".

 

Conceivably. I would not regard it as an insult if one did so.

 

It is not the phrase itself, it is the intent of your.

 

And you are not in a position to argue with me over what my "intent" is.

 

I surmise, and I wager accurately, that your use the phrase to cast Mormons Building Bridges in a negative light.

 

As the world's foremost expert on my "intent," I denounce this as a falsehood.

 

Moreover, I am not responsible for your determination to think ill of me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Conceivably. I would not regard it as an insult if one did so.

 

And you are not in a position to argue with me over what my "intent" is.

 

As the world's foremost expert on my "intent," I denounce this as a falsehood.

 

Moreover, I am not responsible for your determination to think ill of me.

Rofl. I can tell you what your intent was Scott.  I have magical powers that let me know.

[frank_jessop]

Conceivably. I would not regard it as an insult if one did so.

And you are not in a position to argue with me over what my "intent" is.

As the world's foremost expert on my "intent," I denounce this as a falsehood.

Moreover, I am not responsible for your determination to think ill of me.

Due to your presumptions of intent of others, I did not think it inappropriate to presume your intent.